On 2021-Apr-29, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> Getting rid of a redundant, boolean variable is good not because it's more
> efficient but because it's one fewer LOC to read and maintain (and an
> opportunity for inconsistency, I suppose).
Makes sense. Pushed. Thanks everyone.
> Also, this is a roundabo
On Fri, Apr 30, 2021 at 10:49 AM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 30, 2021 at 7:07 AM Justin Pryzby wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 29, 2021 at 02:39:42PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > > On 2021-Apr-29, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > > Alvaro Herrera writes:
> > > > > I'd do it like this. Note I r
On Fri, Apr 30, 2021 at 7:07 AM Justin Pryzby wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 29, 2021 at 02:39:42PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > On 2021-Apr-29, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > Alvaro Herrera writes:
> > > > I'd do it like this. Note I removed an if/else block in addition to
> > > > your changes.
> > >
> > >
On Thu, Apr 29, 2021 at 02:39:42PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2021-Apr-29, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Alvaro Herrera writes:
> > > I'd do it like this. Note I removed an if/else block in addition to
> > > your changes.
> >
> > > I couldn't convince myself that this is worth pushing though; eithe
On 2021-Apr-29, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
> > I'd do it like this. Note I removed an if/else block in addition to
> > your changes.
>
> > I couldn't convince myself that this is worth pushing though; either we
> > push it to all branches (which seems unwarranted) or we create
> >
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> I'd do it like this. Note I removed an if/else block in addition to
> your changes.
> I couldn't convince myself that this is worth pushing though; either we
> push it to all branches (which seems unwarranted) or we create
> back-patching hazards.
Yeah ... an advantage
I'd do it like this. Note I removed an if/else block in addition to
your changes.
I couldn't convince myself that this is worth pushing though; either we
push it to all branches (which seems unwarranted) or we create
back-patching hazards.
--
Álvaro Herrera39°49'30"S
On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 11:05 AM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 9:32 AM Amul Sul wrote:
> > Kindly ignore the previous version -- has unnecessary change.
> > See the attached.
>
> Thanks for the patch!
>
> How about a slight rewording of the added comment to "Constraints
> v
On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 9:32 AM Amul Sul wrote:
> Kindly ignore the previous version -- has unnecessary change.
> See the attached.
Thanks for the patch!
How about a slight rewording of the added comment to "Constraints
validation can be skipped for a newly created table as it contains no
data.
On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 9:28 AM Amul Sul wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 6:26 AM Bharath Rupireddy
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 8:40 PM Jeevan Ladhe
> > wrote:
> > > IMHO, I think the idea here was to just get rid of an unnecessary variable
> > > rather than refactoring.
> > >
> >
On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 6:26 AM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 8:40 PM Jeevan Ladhe
> wrote:
> > IMHO, I think the idea here was to just get rid of an unnecessary variable
> > rather than refactoring.
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 5:48 PM Bharath Rupireddy
> > wrote:
> >
On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 8:40 PM Jeevan Ladhe
wrote:
> IMHO, I think the idea here was to just get rid of an unnecessary variable
> rather than refactoring.
>
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 5:48 PM Bharath Rupireddy
> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 5:04 PM Amul Sul wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi,
>> >
>>
IMHO, I think the idea here was to just get rid of an unnecessary variable
rather than refactoring.
On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 5:48 PM Bharath Rupireddy <
bharath.rupireddyforpostg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 5:04 PM Amul Sul wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Attached patch removes "is_
On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 5:47 PM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 5:04 PM Amul Sul wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Attached patch removes "is_foreign_table" from transformCreateStmt()
> > since it already has cxt.isforeign that can serve the same purpose.
>
> Yeah having that variab
On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 5:04 PM Amul Sul wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Attached patch removes "is_foreign_table" from transformCreateStmt()
> since it already has cxt.isforeign that can serve the same purpose.
Yeah having that variable as "is_foreign_table" doesn't make sense
when we have the info in ctx. I
Thanks Amul, this looks pretty straight forward. LGTM.
I have also run the regression on master and seems good.
Regards,
Jeevan Ladhe
16 matches
Mail list logo
